Week 15 - Da Bears Again

[Mondio]

So if we are ever faced with having to run a 2 minute offense, we are screwed?

I understand what you are saying, but I think its just more the way MLF likes to roll. I also wouldn't be surprised if this slowed down strategy irritates Rodgers a bit.

Breaking your huddle with 15 or less seconds on the play clock just makes no sense to me. As you stated, Turd Biscuit often was standing there, still listening to his coaches in his ear (until 15 seconds) and gave himself the option to take the snap quickly or just wait it out as he studied the Packers defense with his coaches.

Without stirring up to much conversation of any kind of power struggle between MLF and Rodgers, I do get the sense that while MLF likes #12's input, this is MLF's offense and he is making sure he has what he feels is the perfect personnel package on the field for every play. Whether that is good or bad in the long run, I guess we will see, but from my perspective, changing it up on occasion could be worth a try.

2 min offense is Rodgers, and there is a reason teams don't do it all game long.

Let's face it, there are things this team needs to do better. They need to figure it out before the post season. that's not the time to be learning. They're getting a lot of learning situations and they have to get it right now. You can't just sit and do what you like to do to be great.

The staff and the players have a lot to work out and I think fans have fairly unreasonable expectations on how it should look and go. If you can't get your offense groupings etc and plays called in a timely manner now, do they just work on 2 minute drills all week in practice? Heck no, the other part of the offense is 90% of what is going to win you the game. They have to get better at it.

They can run a 2 minute offense, which comes into play 2 or 4 minutes out of 60 for a team. Or you blow your 2 min offense quarter 1 because you can't get anything else going. That game was never close to getting out of hand. Too close for fans comfort, but at no point did I think the Packers were being out played at all. They're figuring it out and winning. Be happy and hope hey can put it together for the playoffs.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

2 min offense is Rodgers, and there is a reason teams don't do it all game long.

Let's face it, there are things this team needs to do better. They need to figure it out before the post season. that's not the time to be learning. They're getting a lot of learning situations and they have to get it right now. You can't just sit and do what you like to do to be great.

The staff and the players have a lot to work out and I think fans have fairly unreasonable expectations on how it should look and go. If you can't get your offense groupings etc and plays called in a timely manner now, do they just work on 2 minute drills all week in practice? Heck no, the other part of the offense is 90% of what is going to win you the game. They have to get better at it.

They can run a 2 minute offense, which comes into play 2 or 4 minutes out of 60 for a team. Or you blow your 2 min offense quarter 1 because you can't get anything else going. That game was never close to getting out of hand. Too close for fans comfort, but at no point did I think the Packers were being out played at all. They're figuring it out and winning. Be happy and hope hey can put it together for the playoffs.

I think you are confused by my statement/question. When I said "are they even capable of running a 2 minute offense?" I wasn't saying, "they should always run the 2 minute offense". You had made the comment that they probably weren't able to play faster due to the new coach and system.

What I was proposing was running more of a no huddle or sugar huddle and get to the LOS with a lot more time on the play clock then they currently do. This constant running new personnel in on almost every play, affords the defense the same opportunity to substitute, as well as drastically reduces the amount of time the offense has to prepare for the next play. From my perspective, if I had to put my finger on it, this offense looks like its being operated by MLF under the assumption that a rookie QB is at the controls and not a seasoned FHOF veteran QB.

 

[Mondio]

I think you are confused by my statement/question. When I said "are they even capable of running a 2 minute offense?" I wasn't saying, "they should always run the 2 minute offense". You had made the comment that they probably weren't able to play faster due to the new coach and system.

What I was proposing was running more of a no huddle or sugar huddle and get to the LOS with a lot more time on the play clock then they currently do. This constant running new personnel in on almost every play, affords the defense the same opportunity to substitute, as well as drastically reduces the amount of time the offense has to prepare for the next play. From my perspective, if I had to put my finger on it, this offense looks like its being operated by MLF under the assumption that a rookie QB is at the controls and not a seasoned FHOF veteran QB.

yes, I agree kind. I think it has to be this way a bit. The 1st year HC has a lot to learn and it's important he and his staff does. They have to work thru all this. The coaches and their communication to other coaches and to the players. I said this at the beginning of the year, one reason I feel they didn't go heavy or after much offense was because MLF didn't even know what he had for players yet. So he's still learning their strengths, weaknesses and how they mesh with his ideas on offense. Then we have HC and QB communication and details. Then we have young WR's learning and these are things we MUST get better at.

I have zero doubt they could move into a hurry up style offense with Rodgers running the show and use our RB's more in passing and we'd look really good for a short while. But if that's what we do and we don't work on the other stuff, we're not going anywhere.

It may not be pretty, but they're getting it done and hopefully learning lessons along the way.

 

[swhitset]

you don't have to agree, but I know a good portion of people would be just as mad had they ran it and lost yards and missed a FG. The most accurate predictor of the future is past behavior. I'm not saying you in particular, but fans, and lots of them, I know exactly how'd they act.

My point is, when you run a play and you get blown up that badly, it doesn't matter. Jones was absolutely destroyed, picked up and tossed like a rag doll and killed that play before it had a chance almost. There was zero option besides 1 read. Get blown up like that on the line with a run play, could be a fumble, could be a 5+ yard loss etc. whatever the play, you have to execute it so much better to even have a chance. They didn't.

on that much... we do agree.

 

[swhitset]

It's pretty easy though, you liked the outcome of one of the plays but didn't with the other. Therefore you blast MLF and Rodgers for being aggressive on the second one.

As I said... stop making assumptions with no evidence. Nothing about it is easy ... since you happen to be wrong.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It may not be pretty, but they're getting it done and hopefully learning lessons along the way.

I think we are on the same page and who knows, maybe this is something we will see MLF and the Packers pull out when they absolutely feel they need to. Winning pretty is not necessary to keep advancing, but as fans, it probably makes us all feel a lot more comfortable about our team. Sunday, they appeared to have the game well in hand at 21-3 running their style of offense and Gute stuck with the plan and eventually got the win.

I can't help but to keep thinking about the 49'er game, when it felt like there was absolutely no urgency with the Packer offense to dig themselves out of a deep hole. I hope that we don't see that situation arise Monday night or in the Playoffs, because if it does, I don't think we see Rodgers and this offense bring them back.

 

[swhitset]

So if we are ever faced with having to run a 2 minute offense, we are screwed?

I understand what you are saying, but I think its just more the way MLF likes to roll. I also wouldn't be surprised if this slowed down strategy irritates Rodgers a bit.

Breaking your huddle with 15 or less seconds on the play clock just makes no sense to me. As you stated, Turd Biscuit often was standing there, still listening to his coaches in his ear (until 15 seconds) and gave himself the option to take the snap quickly or just wait it out as he studied the Packers defense with his coaches.

Without stirring up to much conversation of any kind of power struggle between MLF and Rodgers, I do get the sense that while MLF likes #12's input, this is MLF's offense and he is making sure he has what he feels is the perfect personnel package on the field for every play. Whether that is good or bad in the long run, I guess we will see, but from my perspective, changing it up on occasion could be worth a try.

While we are talking about play clock management... I’d like to add that I noticed that when we punted late in the 4th quarter with a running clock... the ball was snapped with 15 seconds left on the play clock.... That extra 15 seconds certainly made the last Bears drive more viable ....

 

[milani]

Here is the long version if you want it.

****WARNING EXPLICIT LANGUAGE***********************************

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Thanks. Always good to hear it!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

While we are talking about play clock management... I’d like to add that I noticed that when we punted late in the 4th quarter with a running clock... the ball was snapped with 15 seconds left on the play clock.... That extra 15 seconds certainly made the last Bears drive more viable ....

Glad I wasn't the only one that was screaming bloody hell about that. Maybe its easier for fans to keep track of that stuff, but at times it really feels like the simple strategy of clock management is totally overlooked by coaches and players. Also, when you want to run more clock and you punt the ball, don't down it right away! If the ball isn't bouncing backwards, just let it roll and jiggle as those seconds tick off the clock, let the ref finally blow it dead.

 

[milani]

2 min offense is Rodgers, and there is a reason teams don't do it all game long.

Let's face it, there are things this team needs to do better. They need to figure it out before the post season. that's not the time to be learning. They're getting a lot of learning situations and they have to get it right now. You can't just sit and do what you like to do to be great.

The staff and the players have a lot to work out and I think fans have fairly unreasonable expectations on how it should look and go. If you can't get your offense groupings etc and plays called in a timely manner now, do they just work on 2 minute drills all week in practice? Heck no, the other part of the offense is 90% of what is going to win you the game. They have to get better at it.

They can run a 2 minute offense, which comes into play 2 or 4 minutes out of 60 for a team. Or you blow your 2 min offense quarter 1 because you can't get anything else going. That game was never close to getting out of hand. Too close for fans comfort, but at no point did I think the Packers were being out played at all. They're figuring it out and winning. Be happy and hope hey can put it together for the playoffs.

We used to be a team that ran a lot of hurry up. This team would probably have more penalties if it did that. The formations, motion, and out of sync receivers may be why we don't. If anything it gives our D a few more minutes on the sideline even with the 3 and outs.

 

[milani]

Glad I wasn't the only one that was screaming bloody hell about that. Maybe its easier for fans to keep track of that stuff, but at times it really feels like the simple strategy of clock management is totally overlooked by coaches and players. Also, when you want to run more clock and you punt the ball, don't down it right away! If the ball isn't bouncing backwards, just let it roll and jiggle as those seconds tick off the clock, let the ref finally blow it dead.

iouts. I know the Bears lost a timeout with that challenge which helped us. But I wondered on those 3rd downs we had in the 4th quarter which failed why we did not try that formation and pass to Jones that we used in KC to ice the win on the sideline.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

We used to be a team that ran a lot of hurry up. This team would probably have more penalties if it did that. The formations, motion, and out of sync receivers may be why we don't.

That would be a pretty bad excuse, IMO, not to run a style of offense that you actually may be forced to run late in a game that you trail in. Especially when you have #12 at QB.

We are in week 16 of the NFL season, if MLF isn't confident in his offense not being able to play up-tempo, he hasn't been coaching them very well. I would contend that he feels that he can run a more successful offense running it the way that he is and he has no plans to ever play an up-tempo offense unless the situation calls for it. He could be right, but I sure wouldn't have minded seeing the Packers offense run up-temp because they chose to, not because they had to. US Bank Stadium wouldn't be a good place to try it out, due to the crowd noise, so let's hope the Packers can avoid playing from behind on Monday night.

 

[milani]

That would be a pretty bad excuse, IMO, not to run a style of offense that you actually may be forced to run late in a game that you trail in. Especially when you have #12 at QB.

We are in week 16 of the NFL season, if MLF isn't confident in his offense not being able to play up-tempo, he hasn't been coaching them very well. I would contend that he feels that he can run a more successful offense running it the way that he is and he has no plans to ever play an up-tempo offense unless the situation calls for it. He could be right, but I sure wouldn't have minded seeing the Packers offense run up-temp because they chose to, not because they had to. US Bank Stadium wouldn't be a good place to try it out, due to the crowd noise, so let's hope the Packers can avoid playing from behind on Monday night.

I think we saw MM use a lot of hurry up in many of his seasons there. For some it works. For others it does not. The question is whether it means our defense is on the field more and does that affect their performance and does it affect the outcome of the game.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think we saw MM use a lot of hurry up in many of his seasons there. For some it works. For others it does not. The question is whether it means our defense is on the field more and does that affect their performance and does it affect the outcome of the game.

I think you are confused as to the difference between a hurry up 2 minute offense that consistently runs up and snaps the ball in the least amount of time that it can VS an offense that doesn't huddle, but can take its time at the LOS or be ready to snap the ball in a split second if they can catch the defense napping.

Sundays game featured a Packer offense that once up 21-3 intentionally played to slow the game down and use as much clock as possible, yet they failed miserably at it in the 4th Q and their defense didn't get much rest as a result of it. Also, I am not opposed to playing like that with a lead, to hopefully milk the clock and win the game, but as we saw Sunday, it doesn't do much if you can't pick up a first down. You can run a no huddle or sugar huddle offense and still run a lot of time off the game clock if that is your goal.

So I would disagree with the notion that it "helps to rest your defense" if you huddle up and play slow. It only helps if you actually sustain a drive.

 

[milani]

I think you are confused as to the difference between a hurry up 2 minute offense that consistently runs up and snaps the ball in the least amount of time that it can VS an offense that doesn't huddle, but can take its time at the LOS or be ready to snap the ball in a split second if they can catch the defense napping.

Sundays game featured a Packer offense that once up 21-3 intentionally played to slow the game down and use as much clock as possible, yet they failed miserably at it in the 4th Q and their defense didn't get much rest as a result of it. Also, I am not opposed to playing like that with a lead, to hopefully milk the clock and win the game, but as we saw Sunday, it doesn't do much if you can't pick up a first down. You can run a no huddle or sugar huddle offense and still run a lot of time off the game clock if that is your goal.

So I would disagree with the notion that it "helps to rest your defense" if you huddle up and play slow. It only helps if you actually sustain a drive.

If you are up against a slower matriculating offense that runs 10-12 play drives it wears you dowm especially if you are a team that goes no huddle and snaps the ball and by the time the possession is over only 90 seconds have elapsed. It means your D will be out there for 60 plays against their 30. It works if you have the better D. Offense needs rhythm and execution. Defense needs stamina.

 

[milani]

That would be a pretty bad excuse, IMO, not to run a style of offense that you actually may be forced to run late in a game that you trail in. Especially when you have #12 at QB.

We are in week 16 of the NFL season, if MLF isn't confident in his offense not being able to play up-tempo, he hasn't been coaching them very well. I would contend that he feels that he can run a more successful offense running it the way that he is and he has no plans to ever play an up-tempo offense unless the situation calls for it. He could be right, but I sure wouldn't have minded seeing the Packers offense run up-temp because they chose to, not because they had to. US Bank Stadium wouldn't be a good place to try it out, due to the crowd noise, so let's hope the Packers can avoid playing from behind on Monday night.

Mstamina.Makes me think of Chip Kelly who is no longer in the NFL. Eagles D was gassed every week. It takes a special team to play Oregon Duck football.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If you are up against a slower matriculating offense that runs 10-12 play drives it wears you dowm especially if you are a team that goes no huddle and snaps the ball and by the time the possession is over only 90 seconds have elapsed. It means your D will be out there for 60 plays against their 30. It works if you have the better D. Offense needs rhythm and execution. Defense needs stamina.

Mstamina.Makes me think of Chip Kelly who is no longer in the NFL. Eagles D was gassed every week. It takes a special team to play Oregon Duck football.

How often does a 90 second (real time) scoring drive happen? People are getting things confused here. I am not saying the Packers offense needs to race out onto the field and score in 90 seconds. Nor am I saying that they should consistently just run a 2 minute offense. What I AM saying is that the Packer offense should change up the pace and the way in which they run their offense between plays. Keep the defense guessing. Don't always huddle up and then break the huddle at 15 or less seconds and snap the ball at 0-2 seconds. After a play is over, race back to the LOS, be ready to run a play immediately or just let #12 run through his progressions. Or just do a quick sugar huddle and if the defense tries to substitute....run the play fast.

 

[Poppa San]

Breaking your huddle with 15 or less seconds on the play clock just makes no sense to me. As you stated, Turd Biscuit often was standing there, still listening to his coaches in his ear (until 15 seconds) and gave himself the option to take the snap quickly or just wait it out as he studied the Packers defense with his coaches.

You realize the Bears offensive MO was to not allow the Packers defense to substitute? To do that you need to line up ASAP. GB's offensive MO is to continually change personnel groupings. Thus more clock is spent in huddle. Personally I'd like to see the center lining over the ball at around 13-15 seconds, not just breaking the huddle.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

We should have been going for a 1st down when we were around our own 35 or 40 late in the game and we ran the ball 3 times in a row and everyone in the stadium figured that was what would happen. I mean, we are going to have to stop them anyway; so go for the 1st down. Pass on 2nd down.

I'm fine with the Packers running the ball to take time off the clock late in a game but unfortunately there aren't very effective doing it.

As I said... stop making assumptions with no evidence. Nothing about it is easy ... since you happen to be wrong.

I guarantee you wouldn't have complained about the play call if it would have been executed properly and resulted in a first down.

 

[swhitset]

I'm fine with the Packers running the ball to take time off the clock late in a game but unfortunately there aren't very effective doing it.



I guarantee you wouldn't have complained about the play call if it would have been executed properly and resulted in a first down.

Do you even know what the word guarantee means? because as I’ve said repeatedly... you are wrong. I am the only person that can definitively say that since you keep trying to tell me what I think. You might posssibly be the most arrogant person on this entire board. I would never be dumb enough to tell you what you think...


By the way ... if you can’t already tell, I find your assertions to be insulting. I know what I think... you do not. I couldn’t care less if you agree with me or not, but I am very consistent and honest about my opinion. Just because you want to frame the argument in a way that you believe proves some point, does not make you right. I stand by my opinion that in that game situation... passing the ball was the wrong call. I don’t care about your opinion about some other play at a different point in the game where the situation was different. If you want to use that as your basis for YOUR opinion on what the right call was... have at it, but stop trying to tell me what I think ... because it makes you look ignorant.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Do you even know what the word guarantee means? because as I’ve said repeatedly... you are wrong. I am the only person that can definitively say that since you keep trying to tell me what I think. You might posssibly be the most arrogant person on this entire board. I would never be dumb enough to tell you what you think...

By the way ... if you can’t already tell, I find your assertions to be insulting. I know what I think... you do not. I couldn’t care less if you agree with me or not, but I am very consistent and honest about my opinion. Just because you want to frame the argument in a way that you believe proves some point, does not make you right. I stand by my opinion that in that game situation... passing the ball was the wrong call. I don’t care about your opinion about some other play at a different point in the game where the situation was different. If you want to use that as your basis for YOUR opinion on what the right call was... have at it, but stop trying to tell me what I think ... because it makes you look ignorant.

Interestingly I didn't see you complain about the Packers throwing the ball on third-and-5 against the Chiefs on their own 33 right after the two minute warning leading by only a score. I wonder why that might be??? I think I have a pretty good idea.

 

[swhitset]

Interestingly I didn't see you complain about the Packers throwing the ball on third-and-5 against the Chiefs on their own 33 right after the two minute warning leading by only a score. I wonder why that might be??? I think I have a pretty good idea.

It’s funny how Mondio and I can disagree about this and still respect each other’s right to an opinion, while your only goal seems to be to try and prove your superiority. I hope you realize it is proving the opposite.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It’s funny how Mondio and I can disagree about this and still respect each other’s right to an opinion, while your only goal seems to be to try and prove your superiority. I hope you realize it is proving the opposite.

I definitely respect your right to having an opinion and don't care about proving to be superior to anyone around here.

I just want to make you understand that you solely base your evaluation of the play call on the outcome of it - otherwise you should be mad about MLF having Rodgers throw the ball on fourth down early in the game in a similar situation as well.

 

[gopkrs]

My two cents. I don't think Whitset is only judging a play by its outcome. Sure, if the play would have worked; he probably would not talk about it. But I agree with him that the situation was totally different than the TD. And I also agree that we should have played for the field goal (by running the ball) to put us up by two scores.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You realize the Bears offensive MO was to not allow the Packers defense to substitute? To do that you need to line up ASAP. GB's offensive MO is to continually change personnel groupings. Thus more clock is spent in huddle. Personally I'd like to see the center lining over the ball at around 13-15 seconds, not just breaking the huddle.

Exactly and that was the whole point of my posts, the Packers should try changing things up a bit and try the approach that the Bears used quite frequently on Sunday. This was something Rodgers and the offense did quite often in the past and had some decent success.

Again, I am not wanting the Packers to play the entire game in hurry up mode, especially with a 21-3 lead in the second half. However, changing things up by occasionally running a no huddle or sugar huddle, might be a way to wear the opposing defense down and help to jump start the offense when they seem to be having problems moving the ball.